Big Tech is willing to go to extreme lengths to hurt conservatives.
But their biased attacks could be about to end.
Clarence Thomas started a huge fight that could lead to big internet changes.
In past months, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has prominently supported the idea that Big Tech companies should be treated as “public accommodations.”
“Even if digital platforms are not close enough to common carriers, legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation. Although definitions between jurisdictions vary, a company ordinarily is a place of public accommodation if it provides ‘lodging, food, entertainment, or other services to the public … in general,’” Thomas wrote.
A public accommodation is generally defined as a business that offers goods and services to the general public.
“Once again, a doctrine, such as public accommodation, that reduces the power of a platform to unilaterally remove a government account might strengthen the argument that an account is truly government controlled and creates a public forum,” Thomas continued. “The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms. ‘[I]t stands to reason that if Congress may demand that telephone companies operate as common carriers, it can ask the same of’ digital platforms.”
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost is following Thomas’ suggestion and has declared Google is a “public utility” in a lawsuit filed against the Big Tech giant.
“Justice Thomas recently stated, ‘there is a fair argument that some digital platforms are sufficiently akin to common carriers or places of accommodation to be regulated,’” the complaint points out. “Justice Thomas went on to explain, ‘the analogy to common carriers is even clearer for digital platforms that have dominant market share. … Google search — at 90% of the market share — is valuable relative to other search engines because more people use it, creating data that Google’s algorithm uses to refine and improve search results.’
“This suit does not argue that Google’s dominance of internet search is good or bad when viewed in isolation. Those issues are left to be resolved elsewhere,” the complaint reads. “Accepting this fact, the first claim is narrowly focused on establishing that Google’s provision of internet search is properly classified as a common carrier and/or public utility under Ohio common law.”
Google isn’t happy with Ohio’s case against them and claims it has “no basis in fact or law.”
“AG Yost’s lawsuit would make Google Search results worse and make it harder for small businesses to connect directly with customers,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. “Ohioans simply don’t want the government to run Google like a gas or electric company.”
If you want Black Eye Politics to keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.
